[ChiefPilot]

I'm curious if anyone has any information regarding the range / velocity loss encountered when using a 16" barrel instead of a 20" for the 7.62x51mm round. I'm thinking about a larger rifle than my Bushmaster, and for various reasons have decided I would like an AR10.

Anyone done any comparisons for the 7.62x51 round as has been done for the 5.56x45?

Thanks!

 

[variablebinary]

I wouldnt worry too much about the MV of a short barrel MBR. The shorter barrel will mean less energy, meaning a less volatile cartridge for urban areas and QCB. The shorter the barrel will reduce penetration, dump more energy into the target and still have the legendary 7.62 NATO hole.

If I had the patience for government NFA nonsense I'd love to get my hands on one of these DSA beauties.

Oh, and for the record, the MV of 7.62 NATO out of a 16" barrel is roughy 2300fps.

 

[eraser]

here's some excellent info

try this link. it contains some very good information about the various .223 ammo available, and also offers comparisons to the 7.62 configuration.
hope this helps,
Max
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/#762

 

[variablebinary]

Keep me mind that 7.62x51 isnt as dependent on velocity as 5.56 because fragmentation isnt the source of its wounding potential. The muzzle blast and report from the short barrel is sure to kill your ears though

 

[Mus]

Shooting any rifle in a house with no hearing protection will permanently damage your hearing more than likely. Something to think about. Ive been thinking about getting some of those tactical ear muffs with the noise reduction.

 

[Emily W Trott]

I guess if you were concerned only with short ranges of less than 150 yards that the 16" barrel will suffice. You should be aware however that by doing so you have thrown away many of the benefits of this cartridge and moved it into the same class performance wise as the 30-30 Winchester. Not that that's bad but the NATO cartridge would perform much better, as it's designed to do, with the 20" barrel. Stay safe, Gary

 

[Mus]

An 18" barrel would seem to be a good compromise with MV around 2600 FPS with the middle weight bullets.

 

[ChiefPilot]

I guess I am more interested in medium/long range (200-400 yards) accuracy and performance than handiness, so a 20" barrel will probably be the choice.

Thanks!

 

[BillD]

I'm curious if anyone has any information regarding the range / velocity loss encountered when using a 16" barrel instead of a 20" for the 7.62x51mm round. I'm thinking about a larger rifle than my Bushmaster, and for various reasons have decided I would like an AR10.

Anyone done any comparisons for the 7.62x51 round as has been done for the 5.56x45?

Thanks!

What will you be doing with this rifle?

 

[ChiefPilot]

Pretty much just informal target shooting. That, and the usual fondling all my weapons get

I've never owned a rifle larger than .223/5.56mm, and I really like my Bushmaster a lot, so I figured the AR-10 would be a natural step up since it can use many of the same accessories.

 

[Mus]

I've never owned a rifle larger than .223/5.56mm, and I really like my Bushmaster a lot, so I figured the AR-10 would be a natural step up since it can use many of the same accessories.

Personally, while an AR 10 looks nice the hicap mags for them are godawful expensive.

 

[variablebinary]

With an AR10 you're going to have the dirtiest action known in any MBR. The gases from .308 are going to pollute the bore much worse than .223 in AR15. The amount of carbon and build up will make cleaning a nightmare. The G3, M14 and FAL are far better and reliable options than the AR10 and hi-cap mags and parts are much cheaper as well.

 

[ChiefPilot]

I've read the comments about the AR10 on AR15.com and other forums, but I'm not intending to take it into combat or anything like that. I'm not really looking for a "main battle rifle"; I'm looking for a reasonably accurate, semi-automatic rifle larger than a .223 which can use some of the accessories I already have for my Bushmaster. None of the other rifles I've researched meet those requirements, which means that they aren't right for *me*. The Remington 7400 and the Browning BAR are out for me for similar reasons.

At this point, it looks like an Armalite AR-10 with a flattop receiver and a 20" barrel are in my near future....

Thanks!

 

[Mus]

What accessories are you talking about? Optics and such? Just curious.

PS VB... a 13 inch barreled muzzle braked full auto .308... "eye popping muzzle blast" comes to mind. I cant even imagine.

 

[BillD]

Like about a 4' fireball?

 

[Mus]

Like about a 4' fireball?

Ive never shot a .308 with that short a barrel, and never a full auto one in particular, but I was serious about the "eye popping" part. I think you could literally (and uncomfortably) feel in your eyes the concussion from the muzzle brake a foot in front of your face going off. And with the full auto...

I will just sum it up by saying I bet it is very unpleasant to shoot and leave it at that.

:mummy:

 

[ChiefPilot]

What accessories are you talking about? Optics and such? Just curious.

Just a scope and a carry handle, currently. I am going to buy an EOTech in the near future, and it would be nice to be able to swap the scope and the EOTech between the .223 and .308. Although I could put the streamlight on the AR-10, I can't think of any reason to do so.

 

[LAK]

I'd stay with 20". Although I would rather have a short 7.62 than any .22.

 

[variablebinary]

Ive never shot a .308 with that short a barrel, and never a full auto one in particular, but I was serious about the "eye popping" part. I think you could literally (and uncomfortably) feel in your eyes the concussion from the muzzle brake a foot in front of your face going off. And with the full auto...

I have to say that a QCB .308 rifle isnt practical and for anything under 150 yards .223 is a better and more destructive bullet.

.308 shakes the fillings in my teeth with a 18' barrel. With an 11" barrel it has to be torture. Doesnt mean it aint cool though.

.308 is a full power cartridge made with WWII in mind, not modern warefare. At typical combat ranges .223 gets the job done better.

 

[gewehr3]

2300 fps for a 16" .308 is way too slow. At that point you might as well use the 7.62 x 39 mm.

Those results are probably from the DSA FAL with a 13" barrel and a 3" faux flash hider permanently attached. Thee was a an article in SWAT about this model from DSA.

From what I have read a 16" FAL, will deliver around 2600 FPS. The 18" FAL delivers 2650-2700 fps.

Read these threads they are very informative:


http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000088.html

http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000089.html

http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000184.html